When is a hanging "legal"?
The Iraqi government says it will execute the two men sentenced alongside Saddam Hussein -- against growing international . A government official has made it clear that the sentence of death cannot be commuted according to Iraqi law, and there is no provision for a pardon. According to the UN, the lack of a commutation provision is inconsistent with international law.
The Iraqi government also says it plans to ensure that none of the chaos surrounding the execution of Saddam Hussein will overshadow the execution of his colleagues. Nevertheless, the lack of a commutation provision must surely leave the of these executions in serious doubt.
International law also clearly prohibits execution following an unfair trial. The UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, with the explicit support of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, has questioned the of the trial in the case of Saddam Hussein and his co-defendants, Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti and Awad al-Bandar.
In a responsible democracy, these kinds of concerns might give a government reason to pause for reflection. In the case of Iraq, they are unlikely to halt the scheduled executions. These hangings may now take place without the embarrassment of sectarian verbal abuse, but the long shadow of illegality will be more difficult to remove.
We've a term for executions which take place without due process of law. They're called "lynchings".
Comments
The UN says the hanging is illegal? The UN also says that the cold blooded murder of one million Iraqis was illegal. What did the UN do about it? Why would anyone pay any attention to what an utterly impotent and irrelavent organization has to say?
What do I have to say about the UN? American taxpayers would be saved a lot of money and there would be far more available parking spaces and apartments for rent in Manhattan if the US quit it and kicked the whole kit and kaboodle back to Switzerland or the Hague where they belong.
The UN are right. These executions leave me despairing of Iraq's ability to go it alone in the world. I know they are a new democracy, but they need to get their act together if they are to be considered civlised.
yeah right MARK ... the world without the UN would be a better place. That makes perfect sense. Don't you believe in international law and human rights standards? Go read about what UN agencies do across the world and you'll see the good they do. The US frustrates them constantly.
This concept of "international law" is still young and very difficult to validate, since there's that little problem of sovereignty. There is a school of thought in which the UN should be responsible for almost everything and the individual nations should be like local councils, deciding what day the trash gets collected and not much more. But I did not vote for the UN, and I didn't vote for my representative there. (If I did, they'd be acting very differently.) For my money, I'm glad the United States tends to do its own thing.
And please, forgive me if I don't join the anguish over the fact that Barzan al-Tikriti and Awad al-Bander are going to be executed. I've tried, but I just can't seem to get upset about it.
John, in response yo your lack of interest in the death of two human beings created in God's likeness:
"All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated...As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness....No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
-John Donne, Meditation XVII from Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions
John, you're wrong in fact on international law. This is a sophisticated and complex legal corpus that has emerged in the 20th century. The Nuremberg trials are - ironically enough - a significant episode in the development of this law. The United States is also a significant contributor to the story, in its support of the establishment of the UN. 70 years in legal history is not, of course, a long time. But peace between the nations and the protection of human rights within nations demands that international legal instruments are respected and international institutions given more authority.
dave dv #5
"lack of interest in the death of two human beings created in God's likeness:"
Two unrepentent psychopathic mass murderers are in God's likeness? Hmmm, good point, maybe you're on to something.